California Supreme And Appellate Court
Case Summaries
Environmental Law
 

ENVIRONMENTAL LAW
Environmental Law Law Case Summaries

■ Farr v. California Coastal Comm'n, No. B204874

Respondent California Coastal Commission granted a coastal development permit to Michael and Kimberly Doyle.  Appellant Kevin Farr filed a petition for writ of mandate, asking that the trial court order the Commission to vacate its decision and nullify the permit.  The trial court denied the writ, and this appeal followed.  We affirm.

Facts

            This case arises from the Doyles' plan to add a second story -- an additional 10 feet of height -- to their home in Redondo Beach.

            The Doyles' home is on Esplanade Avenue, the first street inland of the ocean.  Esplanade runs parallel to the ocean and is on the bluffs.  It is part of a densely developed residential neighborhood.  For the most part, it is lined on both sides with multi-unit and single family homes.  However, an expansive, unobstructed public view of the shoreline begins just four lots south of the Doyles' house, where the west side of the street is undeveloped.  The Coastal Commission deemed this "one of the best views of any coastal city."

            There is also a view adjacent to the Doyles' house.  A 20 foot wide public accessway to the beach abuts the property on the north.  Knob Hill Avenue, which forms a T with Esplanade, abuts the accessway and ends in a stairway to the beach.  Knob Hill Avenue affords an open corridor to the beach and a public view. 

            The accessway was granted to the City by a previous owner of the Doyles' house, and means that the Doyles' house is on an unusually small lot. 

            The Doyles' house had one story below street level and one story above street level and partly blocked the public's view of the sea from Knob Hill Avenue.  That is, from parts of Knob Hill Avenue, a member of the public could see sky and "part of the sea" over the Doyles' roof.  The proposed additional story would increase the house's height from 13 feet to 23 feet.  The addition would block more of the view from Knob Hill Avenue, but would not obstruct any public view from Esplanade or from the public stairway at the end of Knob Hill.

            A coastal development permit was required for the construction.  Under the California Coastal Act (Pub. Resources Code, § 30000 et seq.),[1] a city which has a certified Local Coastal Program ("LCP") has the authority to issue coastal development permits for projects in that city.  (§ 30519; Schneider v. California Coastal Com. (2006) 140 Cal.App.4th 1339, 1344.)  Redondo Beach has a certified LCP and the Doyles applied to the City for their permit.  The City found that the LCP did not identify the Doyle property for view protection, that the project would leave the house under the LCP's 30 foot height limit, and that the project was consistent with the LCP, and issued the permit.

            The Coastal Act allows an appeal to the Coastal Commission (§ 30603), and Farr filed an appeal.  On such an appeal, the Commission's jurisdiction is limited to determining whether the permit is consistent with the LCP and whether the permit violates coastal access policies.  (Charles A. Pratt Const. Co., Inc. v. California Coastal Com'n (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1074.)

            The Commission found that an issue existed concerning the public's view from Knob Hill Avenue, and held a public hearing on the issue.  After the hearing, in November 2004, the Commission approved the permit, finding that the proposed construction was consistent with the LCP, which did not protect the view over the property, and would conform to the view protection provisions of the Coastal Act. 

            The Commission found, inter alia, that "The affected view of the sea over the rooftop of the existing residential development is already partially obstructed by existing residential development, is not identified as a protected view corridor in the certified LCP, and therefore is not a significant public view that must be protected. . . . The public view affected by the proposed project is a limited view of a small part of the sea's horizon over an existing roof, and it can only be seen from Knob Hill Avenue and its sidewalks.  Therefore, the public view that would be obstructed by the proposed project does not rise to the level of significance that would warrant the imposition of a special building limit on the applicants' thirty-foot wide lot."

            The permit was issued on several conditions, including the detailed limitations on the landscaping and fencing the Doyles could install, and the condition that the Doyles remove a ficus tree, gas meter, and other improvements from the public accessway, finding that the removal of the tree and the improvements would "enhance and protect the public's view of the sea over the adjacent public accessway."  

            Farr filed this action for writ of mandate under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5.  On such a petition, the trial court's "'inquiry . . . shall extend to the questions of whether the [Commission] has proceeded without, or in excess of jurisdiction; whether there was a fair trial; and whether there was any prejudicial abuse of discretion."  Our review is the same as that of the trial court.  (La Costa Beach Homeowners' Assn. v. California Coastal Com. (2002) 101 Cal.App.4th 804, 814.)  The trial court found no abuse of discretion and no action in excess of jurisdiction.  (Fair trial was not an issue.)

■ Held:    

Trial court order denying petition for writ of mandate ordering defendant to vacate its decision and nullify a coastal development permit is affirmed where: 1) the Commission did not add words to Pub. Resources Code sec. 30251, and considered and protected scenic and visual qualities pursuant to the statute when it approved the permit; 2) plaintiff did not establish that there was a lack of substantial evidence for the Commission's decision, and the Commission did not err in its interpretation of the Local Coastal Program; and 3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying plaintiff's motion to supplement the record and finding the proposed additional photographs would be cumulative.
Farr v. Cal.-B204874- Coastal Com. 4/9/09 CA2/5
Farr v. Cal.-B204874- Coastal Com. 4/9/09 CA2/5-PDF  

California Supreme And Appellate Court Opinions Directory  
Case Summaries Directory